# Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523 "2016-05-24T04:00:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/101 "2016-05-25T11:51:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We must have a very elite group of Republicans here at the SDMB, then. This “unelectable” candidate is about to become the Republican choice to run for President this November, and this happened because a clear majority of Republicans voted for him. Did they? Near as I can tell, Trump has collected just over 11.6 million votes in the primaries; and Ted Cruz got well over 7 million, and Marco Rubio got well over 3 million, and John Kasich got well over 3 million; a majority of Republicans voted for someone other than Trump despite him running unopposed in primaries since the other guys dropped out. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/102 "2016-05-25T13:54:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Well, JohnT, let’s go over this. You accused me of making a claim: > Now in fact I never said any such thing. When I asked you when I said that, you posted this quote from me in #39: “why would we expect there to be a special exception solely for the case of Hillary Clinton”. Anyone who reads what I wrote in that post will immediately see that you ripped the quote out of context, and that I never said what you’re trying to pin on me. I did not say that “receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her”. I said that the Clintons received that money from Microsoft; I didn’t say anything about the uniqueness of their money-grubbing. Indeed in my first post in this thread, I said that all politicians were corrupt and sleazy. > > But I guess straw man arguments and taking quotes out of context is the best you have to offer. You’re right, and if I misquoted you directly, my apologies. I will restate my question, removing the word “you”. If one thinks all politicians are sleazy money-grubbers, then why hold this especially against HRC? Unless one never, ever votes because of this principle, why do so many bring it out in regards to HRC vis-à-vis the other candidates? Her husband received a check from Oracle in the same year they had some issue before some branch of the Federal government. Big whoop. Oracle spends millions on lobbying and campaigning every year because they always have some issue before some branch of the Federal government. Evidence of Bill Clinton receiving $175k of the over $4.5 million spent on politics by Oracle in 2012 means as much as the fact that he did not receive the other $4.325 million. This year, Bernie Sanders received $135k from Microsoft, $115k from Apple, over $300k from Alphabet (Google)… I mean, as far as issues are concerned, “I can’t vote for Politician X because they take Big Money” is a non-starter this election cycle as all of them have taken big money… and they always have. Reaching 300+ million people is expensive and not even Bernie Sanders can raise $200+ million on $20 donations. And that’s what he’s spent just on the primaries! So, even though they work within the rules, the fact that Bill & Hillary Clinton are possibly the single greatest fund-raisers in the history of modern politics does work against them, no doubt about it. But as a differentiator between HRC and the other candidates? Not at all: this supposed difference only exists in the minds of their supporters and is not based on real world data. So, that’s my position. They raise lots of money. So what? They all raise lots of money. America isn’t free, you know. Give me something more substantial than “they’re more successful at raising money than others.” ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/103 "2016-05-25T14:24:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We must have a very elite group of Republicans here at the SDMB, then. This “unelectable” candidate is about to become the Republican choice to run for President this November, and this happened because a clear majority of Republicans voted for him. I don’t think it’s nitpicking to say that a clear majority of Republicans did not vote for him. He still hasn’t made 50% of the popular vote even having run unopposed the last 4 states. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican\_vote\_count.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html) ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/104 "2016-05-25T15:08:06Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Personally I don’t understand how feminist women can vote for a woman who has spent her life destroying women who have accused her husband of various sexual crimes. Specifically, how did Hillary “destroy” Kathleen Willey (whose SOLE “witness” refused to corroborate her story, even when Ken Starr threatened her job, the ownership of her house and even the custody of her child) or Juanita Broadderick (who recanted her story, then recanted her recantation, then recanted the recantation of her recantation, etc. etc.)? What finger did Hillary, HERSELF, lift? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/105 "2016-05-25T15:27:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So Hillary and Bill like getting money. They like getting money a lot. Seemingly they enjoy bringing in bigger amounts of money, from more sources including highly questionable sources, than anyone else in American politics, ever. She racked up $22 million in debt or thereabouts from the 2008 campaign, which took almost 4 years to pay off. Campaigns now are more expensive than ever. > [@](#): > > And where there’s so much money flowing in, reasonable people are bound to question whether it would have an undue influence on Clinton’s presidency, if said presidency does occur. I think it’s great that Republicans are finally showing some concern about the corrupting influence of money in politics. Can’t wait for them to put one of their own candidates under the same lens of scrutiny. I’ll hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/106 "2016-05-25T16:01:00Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I don’t think it’s nitpicking to say that a clear majority of Republicans did not vote for him. He still hasn’t made 50% of the popular vote even having run unopposed the last 4 states. > [RealClearPolitics - 2016 Republican Popular Vote](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html) I think that I can still safely say that the Republicans on this board that say they will not vote for him do not accurately represent voting Republicans as a whole. The fact remains that he has been winning in state after state, and there were no great drops in Republican voting that can be traced to the fact that Trump was running unopposed in those last four states-that pretty much indicates that Republicans will swallow their pride and support _whoever_ is running against the Democrats. I predict that by the time their national convention rolls around most of the talk about supplanting him will have died on the vine, and this talk about Republicans either voting for a third party candidate or refusing to vote will be shown for the fantasy it is. The only question that will be asked in the end is “Who is our best chance at this time to beat the Democratic candidate?”…and the unspoken tag to that will be"…no matter who that person is and what their platform is." ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/107 "2016-05-25T16:50:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The fact remains that he has been winning in state after state, and there were no great drops in Republican voting that can be traced to the fact that Trump was running unopposed in those last four states-that pretty much indicates that Republicans will swallow their pride and support _whoever_ is running against the Democrats. Do you have a cite for that? Intuitively I would assume there’s less turnout even amongst Trump supporters when there’s no longer any competition. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/108 "2016-05-25T16:55:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Do you have a cite for that? Intuitively I would assume there’s less turnout even amongst Trump supporters when there’s no longer any competition. A cite for what? That there were no great drops in Republican voters this time around? How about the fact that I can’t find any stories about great drops in Republican voters? If there were any substantial changes of that sort it’s a sure but the media would be all over it…your intuition notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/109 "2016-05-25T17:30:25Z")
You said it was a fact that there was no substantial drop in participation in the last 4 state primaries attrituble to Cruz and Kasich dropping out. That’s what I wanted a cite for. For example, most states have been reporting big increases over 2012 but Oregon showed a slight decrease in turnout percentage. I am just wondering where your confidence is coming from. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/110 "2016-05-25T17:40:15Z")
Also, I am having trouble finding it broken down by party for the last four primaries. Again, just wondering how you’re so sure that Republican primary participation is unaffected by Trump having it in the bag. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/111 "2016-05-25T17:41:02Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You said it was a fact that there was no substantial drop in participation in the last 4 state primaries attrituble to Cruz and Kasich dropping out. That’s what I wanted a cite for. For example, most states have been reporting big increases over 2012 but Oregon showed a slight decrease in turnout percentage. I am just wondering where your confidence is coming from. I’m sorry-_you_ just said that most states have reported increases, and that Oregon only reported a _slight_ decrease. Why, after that, do I need cites to show that there weren’t any massive decreases? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/112 "2016-05-25T17:44:01Z")
?? Because it is an outlier. Instead of a big increase it showed a decrease. That could easily be interpreted as a sudden drop in enthusiasm for this nomination race. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/113 "2016-05-25T17:50:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > ?? Because it is an outlier. Instead of a big increase it showed a decrease. That could easily be interpreted as a sudden drop in enthusiasm for this nomination race. That is a mighty thin straw you’re grasping. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/114 "2016-05-25T17:58:12Z")
But in other words, you don’t have anything to back up the supposedly obvious fact that a one man race hasn’t affected voter turnout. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/115 "2016-05-25T17:58:24Z")
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=1) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general has sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, saying she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received it if she had. > > In a report delivered to members of Congress on Wednesday, the inspector general said that Mrs. Clinton “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business” with officials responsible for handling records and security but that inspectors “found no evidence” that she had requested or received approval from anyone at the department to conduct her state business on a personal email. > > The report also said that department officials “did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business.” [http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/281192-watchdog-agency-hits-clinton-top-aides-on-records-policy](http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/281192-watchdog-agency-hits-clinton-top-aides-on-records-policy) > [@](#): > > The stack of approximately 55,000 pages of emails Clinton gave to the federal government “was incomplete,” the inspector general noted in its report, pointing to multiple emails inspectors found through other means. > > Only five of the 26 current and former Clinton aides responded to questionnaires sent by the watchdog office. Clinton herself turned down a request to be interviewed. [http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553) > [@](#): > > “Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." > > The report also notes that she had an “obligation to discuss using her personal email account” but did not get permission from the people who would have needed to approve the technology. If you can’t see that there is something to this then perhaps you ought to consider that you’re not giving it a fair read. She’s obviously corrupt. She’s probably a better option than Trump, but I suspect most of you praising her will in the future look back and wonder what you were thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/116 "2016-05-25T18:12:56Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > …[Hillary]'s obviously corrupt. She’s probably a better option than Trump, but I suspect most of you praising her will in the future look back and wonder what you were thinking. None of the links you provide support a charge of corruption against HRC. They do suggest she didn’t follow the rules and guidelines for State Department email (and neither did Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice). But this suggests at worst negligence, not necessarily corruption. And not necessarily criminal, either. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/117 "2016-05-25T18:27:48Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > I didn’t find changing one’s mind the issue here. You know she changed her mind, I know it, most know it, but does Hillary know it? She could have easily clarified that her position has evolved, and only within the last few years has she changed her mind, and we’ll pretend she didn’t change her mind because now, politically, many more Americans are now in favor of it than at any other time. But according to Hillary, she states she didn’t change her mind. The video clips show in 2002 she opposed NY state same sex marriage. In 2004, she stated marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman. In 2010 she said she will not support same sex marriage, but civil unions. Only in 2013, she states, she supports lesbians and gay couples right to marry. > > When Terry Gross of NPR (1:09 mark) asked clarification from Hillary that her position has changed on gay marriage or that she had changed her mind, Hillary said she was playing with her words. When Gross tried again to get through to her, Hillary said, you are trying to get me to say that I once was opposed, but now I’m for gay marriage and also doing it for political reasons, and that is flat wrong. So what if she changed if she’s correct now? You know who’s got a terrible stance on gay marriage right now? Trump. He’s also got a pretty shitting opinion on Mexicans, immigrants in general, Muslims, liberals, Democrats, Republicans who are against him, women, the poor. If you’re going to hold Clinton to some standard of having a bad opinion change, then what do you think of Trump’s opinions now? Are you holding out that he’ll change for the better? We have someone who’s better, her name is Hillary Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Randolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Randolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randolph)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/118 "2016-05-25T18:48:04Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > She’s obviously corrupt. As any fool can plainly see. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/119 "2016-05-25T18:59:03Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > …perhaps you ought to consider that you’re not giving it a fair read. She’s obviously corrupt. Yes, a fair read indeed! ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/120 "2016-05-25T19:03:53Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > You know who’s got a terrible stance on gay marriage right now? Trump. Uh, not to defend The Donald, but I thought his take was ‘the fight is over, let’s move on’. That’s a far cry from most of the other GOP candidates stances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=7)